Constructivist learning in university undergraduate programmes

Shanlax
International Journal of Education shanlax
# S I N C E 1 9 9 0
http://www.shanlaxjournals.in 7
Constructivist Learning in University
Undergraduate Programmes. Has
Constructivism been Fully Embraced?
Is there Clear Evidence that
Constructivist Principles have been
Applied to all Aspects of Contemporary
University Undergraduate Study?
Andrew G Holmes
Lecturer, Faculty of Arts Cultures and Education, School of Education
The University of Hull, Hull, England
Abstract
This conceptual paper provides an overview of constructivist education and the development and
use of constructivist principles in contemporary higher education, outlining constructivism and
some specific facets of student-centered learning. Drawing from first-hand experience and using two
examples of current university assessment practice, reflective learning, and learning outcomes, the
author argues that, despite claims constructivist pedagogical approaches have become normative
practice when it comes to assessment processes, constructivism has not been fully embraced. The
question ‘is there clear evidence that constructivist principles have been applied to all aspects of
university undergraduate study?’ is considered. This is important and significant and should be of
concern to all educators who espouse constructivist principles in higher education.
Keywords: Constructivism, Pedagogy, Teaching, Learning, Assessment, Student-centered
learning, Learning outcomes, Active-learning, Reflective learning.
Introduction
Almost a quarter of a century ago, Philips (1995), in an extensively cited
education research paper, argued that “there is a very broad and loose sense
in which all of us these days are constructivists” (p. 5). Since then, student-
centered learning and constructivist approaches to teaching have increasingly
been emphasized and encouraged by universities globally (Taylor, 2015). As
Krahenbul (2016) recently argued: “Constructivism is undoubtedly one of the
most influential philosophies in higher education in the twenty-first century”
(p.97).Caneducatorsandmanagers,thereforesafelyassumethatthisphilosophy
has influenced and impacted the key elements of university education? Is there
clear evidence that constructivist principles have been applied to all aspects of
university undergraduate study?
Traditional Teacher-Centered Learning
Ernst von Glaserfeld, in a seminal paper argued that “From the beginning of
Western philosophy, the knowledge human reason constructs was in some way
thought to be related to an independent reality” (1995, p. 41). The positivistic
natural science view of learning “that knowledge is nothing more and nothing
less than the scientific discovery of an external reality” (Kincheloe, 2005, p. 13)
OPEN ACCESS
Volume: 8
Issue: 1
Month: December
Year: 2019
P-ISSN: 2320-2653
E-ISSN: 2582-1334
Received: 18.09.2019
Accepted: 20.10.2019
Published: 01.12.2019
Citation:
Holmes, Andrew G.
“Constructivist Learning in
University Undergraduate
Programmes. Has
Constructivism Been
Fully Embraced? Is There
Clear Evidence That
Constructivist Principles
Have Been Applied to All
Aspects of Contemporary
University Undergraduate
Study?” Shanlax
International Journal of
Education, vol. 8, no. 1,
2019, pp. 7–15.
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.34293/
education.v8i1.819
This work is licensed
under a Creative Commons
Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0
International License

Shanlax
International Journal of Education
shanlax
# S I N C E 1 9 9 0
http://www.shanlaxjournals.in
8
and that knowledge exists independently of our minds
in a fixed state, meant that for many years knowledge
was deemed to be something that could be taught
via a teacher-centered approach. This behaviorist
model of one-way transmission of content; with
learners regarded as being ‘empty vessels’ who
could be ‘filled up’ with knowledge, involving the
teacher or ‘fountain of knowledge’ who delivered, it
was conceptualized by Freire (1970) as a ‘banking’
model of education. Factual knowledge was regarded
as existing independently of the learner. Teaching
was akin to depositing money (knowledge) in a bank
(the learner). It was ‘out there’ pre-existing, ready
to be discovered or uncovered, taught and learned.
Subjectivity, values, individual interpretations of
knowledge and interpretive research were regarded
as being unscientific. As von Glaserfeld argued, “In
the traditional view, schools are seen as institutions
that are to impart value-free, objective knowledge to
students” (1995, p. 176). Teaching would involve
rote learning and coverage of content (Shah, 2019).
In a similar vein, Pepin (1998) suggested that “The
belief that it is possible for a subject [i.e., learner]
to understand and assimilate some precise bit of
knowledge which has been mastered by another
subject [i.e., the teacher] is, without doubt, the main
basis of our customary representation of education”
(p. 180).
With a teacher-centered approach, the
transmission of pre-existing knowledge is seen
as the main process of education and a “corpus
of knowledge is established beforehand, which
students are to master” (ibid. p. 180). Associated
with this behaviorist transmission model of teaching
are educational techniques such as lecturing,
rote learning, memorizing facts, and assessment
(primarily formal closed-book examinations)
based on the replication of correct answers and a
demonstration of understanding. In this one-way
didactic transmission model of knowledge transfer
from teacher-to-learner, responsibility for learning
lies with the teacher or lecturer. It is not the student’s
responsibility to learn; they are passive recipients. It
follows that within this paradigm, the teacher teaches
and therefore, the learner learns, and “for learners to
learn, teachers must teach” (Adams, 2011 p. 29).
This didactic approach contrasts markedly with
constructivist teaching.
Constructivist Approaches to Learning
Constructivist approaches focus on the learner
as being an active participant in the learning process
and argue that for learning and understanding to
take place, knowledge has to be assimilated by
and incorporated into a learner’s existing mental
patterns. They must make new mental constructs
for themselves. Learners are seen as been actively
responsible for their learning as active constructors
of their knowledge, not passive vessels to be filled
up. The teacher is no longer the sole source of
‘correct’ knowledge but is a facilitator or guide
and co-producer of meaning. As Adams suggests,
“constructivist discourse denies a simplistic
relationship between teacher activity and that which
a learner learns” (2011, p. 27) and rejects positivistic
assumptions that “the assumption that learning
is an internalization of an external reality which
predates human cognizing and which sits ready to be
discovered and understood” (ibid.).
Kanuka and Anderson (1999) identify two
dimensions of constructivist approaches, which
lead to four differing positions. The first is a
continuum between an understanding of reality as
being objective at one end, and a view that reality
is subjectively defined at the other. The second
dimension is a continuum from knowledge being
socially constructed at one end, to knowledge as
being individually constructed at the other. This gives
four positions: ‘co constructivism’ where knowledge
is socially constructed and there is an objective
reality, ‘situated constructivism’ where knowledge
is socially constructed and there is no objective
external reality (i.e., there are multiple realities),
‘cognitive’ or ‘critical constructivism’ where
knowledge is individually constructed and there is an
objective reality, and ‘radical constructivism’ where
knowledge is individually constructed and there are
multiple realities (Kanuka & Anderson, 1999, p. 1-6).
Socially constructed constructivist learning places
emphasis on learning through interaction, discussion,
negotiation and sharing. These are pedagogical and
andragogical approaches that have been increasingly
adopted throughout higher education over the last
twenty years and particularly so in the last decade.
Very few people in the field of Educational
studies would disagree that the three constructivists

Shanlax
# S I N C E 1 9 9 0
whose work has impacted the most upon pedagogy
in schools and andragogy in colleges and universities
are Bruner, Piaget and Vygotsky. The majority
of their work relates primarily to children’s
learning. For example, Piaget’s (1957, 1958, 1972,
1990) four stages of cognitive development and
learning occurring through stimulus and response,
assimilation and accommodation, Bruner’s (1960,
1961) spiral curriculum and discovery learning and
Vygotsky’s (1978) Zone of Proximal Development
(essentially the difference between the current actual
development level of a child and their potential
developmentunderadultguidance,orincollaboration
with more capable peers) and a belief that knowledge
is constructed socially, using language.
Many of their underpinning concepts and beliefs
have fed into education and shaped or informed the
teaching processes evident in both school and post-
compulsory education today and have led to a more
student-centeredapproachtoteaching.Bruner’s(1960
& 1961) proposition that students are active learners
who construct their own knowledge and organize
and categorize information using a coding system
which is best discovered rather than being delivered
or taught led to the 1960’s ‘discovery learning’
movement, with ‘learning by doing’ and ‘active-
learning’ becoming valid and heavily promoted
approaches to facilitating learning, particularly so
within the sciences. His work shifted the emphasis of
many teachings to include structuring the curriculum
to build on and reinforce ideas repeatedly (a spiral
curriculum). Bruner’s concept of scaffolding
(helpful, structured interaction between an adult
and a child to help the child achieve a specific goal),
emphasized the social nature of learning. Vygotsky
and Bruner emphasized language; that it allows for
the ability to deal with abstract concepts. Both would
later be regarded as being social constructivists:
conceptualizing knowledge as being a product of
social interaction, interpretation and understanding
(Adams, 2006), whereas Piaget’s work, with
an emphasis on biological and psychological
development, would be seen as being a cognitive
or critical constructivist approach. Piaget’s work
laid the foundations for and was a primary influence
on constructivist approaches being introduced into
compulsory education. It had widespread influence
both on constructivist philosophy and educational
policy and practice (Kanuka & Anderson, 1999) and
informed von Glaserfeld’s (1995) later concept of
‘radical constructivism’. Piaget’s influence was far
and wide-ranging, for example, informing the United
Kingdom’s Plowden Report (1967) and subsequent
major reform of British school education so that
it emphasized child-centered learning. Its’ often-
quoted statement “At the heart of the educational
process lies the child” (chapter 2, p. 7) was based on
Piaget’s theories of child growth and development
and his emphasis on the child as an individual
learner. Today, as Mayer argued over a decade ago,
“constructivism has become the dominant view of
how students learn” (2004, p .14).
Tenets of Constructivism
The basic premise of constructivism is that
“meaningful learning occurs when the learner
strives to make sense of the presented material by
selecting relevant incoming information, organizing
it into a coherent structure and integrating it with
other organized knowledge” (Mayer, 2003, cited in
Mayer, 2004) and that “learning is an active process
in which learners are active sense makers who seek
to build coherent and organized knowledge” (ibid.).
There is considerable evidence of constructivist
principles in use within higher education today, and
because a range of different methods fall under the
broad umbrella term of ‘constructivist’ or ‘student-
centered’ teaching practices (Baeten et al. 2013) it
can be argued, as Meyer does, that “Constructivism
can no longer be viewed as an exercise in radical
thinking primarily aimed at generating innovative
teaching. It has become an integral part of the
pedagogic mainstream” (2008, p. 334). Though it
is important to note, “constructivist learning theory
provides a view on learning and not on teaching”
(Baeten et al. 2013, p. 13). This last point is important;
constructivist approaches are not about teaching,
but about learning. Yet typically in university and
governmental statements, the words teaching and
learning are used in conjunction. Regardless of the
specific dimension of constructivism followed
All positions of constructivism would agree that
teaching cannot be viewed as the transmission of
knowledge to the unenlightened from the enlightened.

Shanlax
shanlax
# S I N C E 1 9 9 0
10
Nor can the learning process be teacher-centered
where the student is a receptacle of information
(like a ‘beaker’ that can be filled with information)
(Kanuka & Anderson 1999, p. 9).
Student-Centered Learning
The term ‘student-centered’ learning “can mean
different things to different people” (O’Neill &
McMahon, 2005, p .1) but generally, its proponents
aim to “break away from the traditional lecturer
dominated classroom and to encourage greater
student participation and responsibility” (Boyapati,
2000, p. 365). The European Union’s highly
influential Lifelong Learning Programme identifies
the core aspects of student-centered learning as being:
innovative teaching, active learning, use of learning
outcomes, a system of academic credit accumulation
and transfer, flexible curricula and learning paths
(Attard, 2010, p. 11-12). Yet, crucially, they identify
that there is “difficulty in defining exactly what
student-centered learning entails” (ibid.).
Although a precise definition may not be possible,
student-centered learning is typically characterized
by three features: (1) active involvement of the
learners to construct knowledge for themselves, (2)
a coaching and facilitating teacher and (3) the use
of authentic assignments (Baeten, et al 2013, p. 15).
Authentic in this context refers to an approach which
allows or requires students to explore, discuss and
make meaningful constructs and relationships within
contexts that involve working with and using ‘real-
world’ problems and projects that are relevant to the
learner and typically are based on actual practice
outside of the university environment (Donovan et
al. 1999).
Rule (2006) identifies four principles for
authentic learning: (1) a focus on practical, lifelike
problems that imitate the trade of experts in the
field, (2) inquiry-based learning with an emphasis
on metacognitive skills, (3) learners’ participation in
active conversations in a social learning environment,
and (4) allowing learners make choices and guide
their learning in meaningful, task-oriented work.
Others would include an emphasis on deep learning
(Holmes, 2018a, 2019), increased responsibility and
accountabilityonthepartofthestudentandareflexive
approach to the process by both the teacher and the
learner (Lea et al. 2003). Student-centred learning
involves teaching techniques such as: discovery
learning, problem based learning (PBL), hands-
on and experiential learning, group discussions,
project work, use of learning contracts and reflective
learning; all of which form part of a student-
centred learning approach in use and are espoused
as necessary pedagogical approaches throughout
contemporary higher education programmes.
Active Learning
Active learning is a term that many educators
are familiar with; however as with student-centered
learning, defining it precisely is problematical.
McManus identifies, “There is no universally
accepted definition of ‘active learning’” (2006,
p. 1). Although over ten years old, the quotation
is still valid today. Active learning is a term that
encompasses a range of pedagogical approaches
that emphasize learners being actively involved
in the learning process rather than being passive
recipients of the information. It is typified by a
shift from the teacher/lecturer moving from being
a source of knowledge to a guide to the process
of learning rather than a ‘manager of content,’ the
teacher becomes a facilitator of learning rather than
a deliverer of material. Thus, active learning may
be viewed as a wholly constructivist approach. One
definition is that it is “anything course-related that all
students in a class session are called upon to do other
than simply watching, listening and taking notes”
(Felder & Grant, 2009, p. 2). It may be inferred
from this that active learning means many different
things to many different people and that it may be
easier to identify what active learning is not, rather
than what it is. We can, for example, clearly identify
that it is not a traditional two-hour lecture or chalk-
and-talk exposition. It is an “essentially contested
concept” (Gallie, 1956, p. 169), i.e., impossible
to conclusively define, but perfectly possible and
rational for educators to discuss and justify their
holding of one interpretation rather than a competing
one.
Common forms of teaching which typify active
learning approaches include: learning by doing,
group work, debate, co-operative learning, dialogic
learning, collaborative work, question and answer

Shanlax
# S I N C E 1 9 9 0
sessions, project-based work; essentially any activity
which encourages and allows for student interaction
with each other and with the teacher, engagement
with the topic and opportunities for reflection and a
shift in emphasis on the responsibility for learning
moving from the teacher to the learner. Arguably,
most university teaching now incorporates a range
of active learning techniques, albeit to a varying
extent, as the formal lecture is still a predominant
teaching method (see, for example, Stearns, 2017,
for a discussion of this).
Has Constructivism been Embraced? The use of
Reflective Learning as an Example.
One facet of student-centered learning, that
of reflective learning, as a means of encouraging
students to become actively involved and construct
meanings for themselves, is extensively used within
thefieldsofEducationandNursingandisincreasingly
evident throughout many disciplines. Students are
encouraged (or required by assessment processes)
to become ‘critically reflective practitioners’ by
the time they complete an undergraduate degree.
For example, referring to two typical university
Education modules, learning outcomes assessed
would be ‘to use theory and practice to reflect upon
and improve practice’ and ‘to reflect on and critically
evaluate experiences.’ Thus, on the face of it, a
constructivist approach is in use. The students are
encouraged to learn and use a model of reflection,
such as Brookfield’s (1995) four lenses or Schön’s
(1983) reflection in and on action, along with critical
incident recording, to reflect on their own learning
and development, actively constructing meaningful
and relevant personal knowledge, which they are
then able to use to draw conclusions and apply the
new knowledge within their practice (as for, example
a trainee teacher, or nurse). Therefore, it may be
argued that constructivism and student-centered
learning is in use and embedded within existing
structures and assessment protocols in university
education in these two fields. Yet is it? On a surface
level, yes. University lecturers use active learning
techniques when teaching, yet the teacher-centered
lecture delivery is still seen both students and
academics as being the prime method of teaching
(Smith and Valentine, 2012) and is enshrined in
university terminology: the lecturer, the lecture
theatre, the lecture series. Universities do aim and
want or claim to want their learners to be independent,
autonomous and active learners (Holmes, 2018b).
Yet, crucially, that has to be within the parameters
of what the academics, define and articulate as being
relevant knowledge. The lecturer is still seen by
the undergraduate learner as the source of ‘correct’
knowledge; learners are not always able to value,
trust, or even to believe their own constructed
knowledge. And this may be due to a range of
factors including the power relationship between
lecturer and learner, students’ lack of confidence in
their abilities, and many years of experience of more
behaviorist oriented teaching within the compulsory
school education sector when they were younger.
The academic is seen as the expert provider; students
do not always trust and believe their view, they
frequently want, and need, the lecturer’s expertise to
provide reassurance and guidance. This is typified by
a conversation the author recently had with a third-
year undergraduate student, who stated, “I don’t
know if I am doing this reflection business right. I am
reflecting, learning and putting things into practice
at work and making changes in the way I do things;
but I don’t know if I’m doing the right things the
right way when I reflect and with the conclusions,
I make from the reflection, or if I’m learning the
right things. How do I know that what I think and
conclude is correct?”. The author inferred from this
that the student was engaged in authentic learning
and making meaningful constructs, but that they did
not have the confidence to believe or trust their new
knowledge constructs. They needed the reassurance
provided by the lecturer (perhaps what Bruner would
have referred to as a ‘more knowledgeable other’).
The student needed a more knowledgeable other
to, in effect, ratify or confirm that the conclusions
they had drawn were accurate and correct. This does
not mean to say that constructivist principles have
not been embraced, yet is perhaps a reminder that
constructivist theory is about learning, not teaching.
However, when we look at assessment processes,
specifically the use of learning outcomes, it may be
seen that constructivist principles may have been
abandoned or ignored.

Shanlax
shanlax
# S I N C E 1 9 9 0
12
Has Constructivism been Fully Embraced? The
use of Learning Outcomes in Higher Education
as an Example.
One facet of constructivist student-centered
learningisthatstudentsshouldbeinvolvedindeciding
how to evidence their learning and participate in its
evaluation (O’Neil & McMahon, 2005). Over the
last two decades, there has been a considerable shift
towards the use of pre-specified learning outcomes
within modularized credit-based higher education
programmes (Holmes, 2019) to the extent that the
considerable majority of university programmes
throughout the world use learning outcomes. Their
use should allow students to be able to provide a
range of evidence to demonstrate achievement of an
outcome (Otter, 1992) as Attard argues, “With the
use of learning outcomes the focus shifts from what
the teacher is able to teach to what the achievements
and level of understanding of the student are expected
to be” (2010, p. 12). Gibbs, along with many others,
argues that learning outcomes empower students
because they are not content-based but outcome-
based (Gibbs, 1995). To an extent, this happens;
outcomes may be based on transferable/professional/
practical skills rather than subject knowledge (yet
always underpinned by relevant academic theory).
O’Neil and McMahon identify that the practice of
writing learning outcomes is “an example of the move
towards student-centered learning in the curriculum
and helps to shift the emphasis on the learner as
opposed to a coverage model by the teacher” (2005,
p. 5). But does it? A constructivist approach should
allow some, perhaps all, of the learning outcomes
to be changed for different learners and allow them
to negotiate and agree on their outcomes, thereby
making the learning experience more meaningful
and relevant (Holmes, 2019). What is very apparent
throughout current higher education practice
globally is that the assessment of learning outcomes
requires the learner to demonstrate achievement of
outcomes that have been determined in advance by
the academic, not by the learner (ibid.). The learning
outcomes are pre-specified. The assessment is
devised by the academic, often months in advance
of a module being taught, then is typically approved
by an academic approvals committee or external
examiner. It is often little or no real consideration
was given during this process to the specific cohort
of learners and their existing knowledge, nor the
individual learner within a cohort. Effectively, at
this stage, constructivist principles are not embraced.
They would seem to be disregarded. And this is
seemingly regardless of whether a student being
actively engaged and suggesting their assessment
may lead to improving their interest, knowledge
and understanding of the subject (Holmes, 2019).
Almost thirty years ago, Merril (1991) suggested that
a constructivist approach would necessarily argue
that specific learning outcomes are not possible
because knowledge and meaning are constructed
individually by and are unique to each learner.
Yet higher education has embraced and integrated
learning outcomes. Learning outcomes and their
assessment frequently dominate the curriculum and
distort it (Torrance, 2007) so that learning outside
the parameters of the outcomes is disregarded or
ignored (Torrance, 2012, Holmes, 2019) by some
learners. It follows that using pre-specified learning
seriously outcomes undermines progress in utilizing
constructivist learning approaches. The author
argues it is not the use of learning outcomes per se,
but the way that learning outcomes are used, that is
antithetical to constructivist approaches.
Summary and Concluding Remarks
The two examples provided, reflective learning
and pre-specified learning outcomes demonstrate
that although universities have adopted student-
centered and active-learning pedagogies, it is highly
debateable whether constructivism and constructivist
principles have been fully embraced in assessment
processes.
The question examined was, ‘is there clear
evidence that constructivist principles have been
applied to all aspects of university undergraduate
study?’. As has been demonstrated, there is
evidence to the contrary. Universities and university
educators have embraced constructivism yet not
fully embraced it in respect to learning outcomes.
As Lea identified in 2003, “many institutions or
educators claim to be putting student-centered
learning into practice, but, in reality, they are not”
(2003, p. 322). There has been a notable increase
in the adoption of constructivist approaches to
learning since then, yet with assessment practices,

Shanlax
# S I N C E 1 9 9 0
and specifically the use of pre-specified learning
outcomes, there is less evidence of constructivism
in use. The author has argued that there has been a
shift towards constructivist education, from teacher-
centered to learner-centered education and that over
the last twenty or so years universities and university
educators have increasingly embraced constructivist
principles, yet that when it comes to the assessment
of learning outcomes, constructivism would
seem to be disregarded. If educators wish to fully
embrace constructivism, they should consider how
constructivist principles are implemented throughout
all aspects of the teaching, learning and assessment
protocols and processes in use.
Higher education has adopted and implemented
many aspects of constructivism, yet has not fully
embraced it in respect of the assessment of pre-
specified learning outcomes. Should universities,
therefore, genuinely claim that they use constructivist
approaches to learning? Yes, they may. But
should they claim that they have fully embraced
constructivism? No, they should not do so.
References
Adams, P. “Exploring Social Constructivism:
Theories and Practicalities.” Education 3-13,
International Journal of Primary, Elementary,
and Early Years Education, vol. 34, no. 3,
2006, pp. 243-257.
Adams, P. “ICT and Pedagogy: Opportunities
Missed.” Education 3-13, International
Journal of Primary, Elementary, and Early
Years Education, vol. 39, no. 1, 2006,
pp. 21-33.
Attard, A. “Student Centred Learning: An Insight
into Theory and Practice.” European
Students Union EU Lifelong Learning
Programme imprint, Bucharest, 2010,
pp. 6-46.
Baeten, M., Struyven, K. and Dochy, F. “Student-
Centred Teaching Methods: Can they
Optimize Students’ Approaches to Learning
in Professional Higher Education.” Studies in
Educational Evaluation, vol. 39, no. 1, 2013,
pp. 14-22.
Boyapati Ed. “Learning: Student-Centered Vs.
Teacher-Centered.” Korean Journal of
Chemical Engineering, vol. 17, no. 3, 2000,
pp. 365-367.
Bruner, J. “The Act of Discovery.” Harvard
Educational Review, vol. 31, 2008, pp. 21-32.
Bruner, J. “The Narrative Construction of Reality.”
Critical Inquiry, vol. 18, no. 1, 1991, pp. 1-21.
Bruner, J. The Process of Education, Harvard
University Press, Cambridge MA, 1960.
Davis, B and Sumara, D. “Constructivist Discourses
and the Field of Education: Problems and
Possibilities.” Educational Theory, vol. 52,
no. 4, 2002, pp. 409-428.
Desautels, J., Garrison, J. and Fleury, S. “Critical-
Constructivism and the Sociopolitical
Agenda.” How People Learn: Bridging
Research and Practice, edited by Donovan,
M, Bransford, JD and Pellegrino, JW,
National Academy, Washington, DC, 1999.
Felder, RM and Grant, R. “Active Learning an
Introduction.” ASQ Higher Education Brief,
vol. 2, no. 4, 2009, pp. 1-5.
Freire, P. Pedagogy of the Oppressed, Continuum,
New York, 1970.
Fleury, S.C. Constructivism and Education: Social
Studies, Trivial Constructivism, and the
Politics of Social Knowledge, Cambridge
University Press, New York, 1988.
Fook, J. “Critical Reflection and Transformative
Possibilities.” Social Work in a Corporate
Era: Practices of Power and Resistance,
edited by Davis, L and Leonard, P., 1991.
Fook, J. “Keynote for “Professional Lifelong
Learning: Beyond Reflective Practice, 3 July,
2006.” 2013.
Gibbs, G. Assessing Student Centered Courses,
Oxford Center for Staff Learning and
Development, Oxford, 1995.
Gibbs, G. Teaching Students to Learn: A Student
Centered Approach, Open University Press,
Oxford, 1981.
Glaserfield, EV. “Cognition, Construction of
Knowledge and Teaching.” Synthese,
vol. 80, no. 1, 1989, pp. 121-140.
Glaserfield, EV. Radical Constructivism: A Way of
Knowing and Learning, The Falmer Press,
London, 1995.
Glaserfield, EV. “A Constructivist Approach to
Teaching.” Constructivism in Education,
edited by Steffe, LP and Gale, J., Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, New Jersey, 1995.

Shanlax
shanlax
# S I N C E 1 9 9 0
14
Glaserfield, EV. “Why Constructivism must be
Radical.” Constructivism and Education,
edited by Larochelle, M, Bednarz, N and
Garrison, G. Cambridge University Press,
New York, 1998.
Henriques, L. Constructivist Teaching and Learning:
Faces of Constructivism, California State
University, California.
Holmes, AG. “The Role of Interest and Enjoyment
in Determining Students’ Approach to
Learning.” Educational Process International
Journal, vol. 7, no. 2, 2018a, pp. 140-150.
Holmes, AG. “Problems with Assessing Student
AutonomyinHigherEducation,anAlternative
Perspective and a Role for Mentoring.”
Educational Process International Journal,
vol. 7, no. 1, 2018b, pp. 24-38.
Holmes, AG. “Learning Outcomes: A Good Idea
Yet with Problems and Lost Opportunities.”
Educational Process International Journal,
vol. 8, no. 3, 2019, pp. 159-169.
Jonassen, DH. “Designing Constructivist Learning
Environments.” Instructional-design Theories
and Models, edited by Reigeluth, 1998.
Jonassen, DH. “Instructional Design Models for
Well-Structured and ill Structured Problem-
Solving Learning Outcomes.” Educational
Technology Research and Development, vol.
45, no. 1, 1997, pp. 65-94.
Kanuka, H and Anderson, T. “Using Constructivism
in Technology-Mediated Learning:
Constructing Order Out of the Chaos in
Literature.” Radical Pedagogy, 1999.
Kincheloe, JL. Critical Constructivism Primer, Peter
Lang Publishing, USA, 2005.
Krahnebul, KS. “Student-centered Education and
Constructivism: Challenges, Concerns, and
Clarity for Teachers.” The Clearing House: A
Journal of Educational Strategies and Ideas,
vol. 89, no. 3, 2016, pp. 97-105.
Lea, S.J., Stephenson, D. and Troy, J. “Higher
Education Students’ Attitudes to Student
Centred Learning: Beyond ‘Educational
Bulimia?.” Studies in Higher Education,
vol. 28, no. 3, 2003, pp. 321-334.
Meyer, DL. “The Poverty of Constructivism.”
Educational Philosophy and Theory, vol. 41,
no. 3, 2009, pp. 332-341.
Mayer, RE. “Should There be a Three-Strikes Rule
against Pure Discovery Learning? The Case
for Guided Methods of Instruction.” American
Psychologist, vol. 59. no. 1, 2004, pp. 14-19.
McManus, M. and Taylor, G. Active Learning Active
Learning Active Citizenship: Theoretical
Contexts, University of Birmingham,
Birmingham, 2006.
Merril, D. “Constructivism and Educational Design.”
Educational Technology, vol. 31, no. 50,
1991, pp. 45-53.
Olssen, M. “Radical Constructivism and its Failings:
Anti-Realism and Individualism.” British
Journal of Educational Studies, vol. 44, no. 3,
1996, pp. 275-295.
Otter, S. Learning Outcomes in Higher Education,
Unit for the Development of Adult Continuing
Education (UDACE), 1992.
O’Neil, H., Moore, S. and McMahon, T. Emerging
Issues in the Practice of University Learning
and Teaching, AISHE Readings HEA
Academy AISHE, Dublin, 2005.
Pepin, Y. “Practical Knowledge and School
Knowledge: A Constructivist Representation
of Education.” Constructivism and Education,
edited by Larochelle, M., Bednarz, N. and
Garrison, G., Cambridge University Press,
New York, 1998.
Perkins, D. “The Many Faces of Constructivism.”
Educational Leadership Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development,
vol. 57, no. 3, 1999, pp. 6-11.
Perkins, David. N. “What Constructivism Demands
of the Learner.” Educational Technology,
vol. 31, no. 9, 1991, pp. 19-21.
Perkins, DN. “What Constructivism Demands of the
Learner.” Constructivism and the Technology
of Instruction: A Conversation, edited by
Duffy, TM and Jonasson, DH., 1992, pp. 161-
165.
Philips, DC. “The Good, the Bad, the Ugly: The
Many Faces of Constructivism.” Educational
Researcher, vol. 24, no. 7, 1995, pp. 5-12.
Piaget, J and Cook, MT. The Origins of Intelligence
in Children. International University Press,
New York, 1952.

Shanlax
# S I N C E 1 9 9 0
Piaget, J. Construction of Reality in the Child,
Routledge & Kegan Paul, London, 1957.
Piaget, J. “The Growth of Logical Thinking from
Childhood to Adolescence.” AMC, vol. 10,
no. 12, 1958.
Piaget, J. The Psychology of the Child, Basic Books,
New York, 1972.
Piaget, J. The Child’s Conception of the World,
Littlefield Adams, New York, 1990.
Piaget, J, The Essential Piaget, edited by Gruber,
H.E. and Voneche, J. Basic Books, 1977.
Rule, AC. “Editorial: The Components of Authentic
Learning.” Journal of Authentic Learning,
vol. 3, no. 1, 2006, pp. 1-10.
Schön, D. The Reflective Practitioner: How
Professionals Think in Action, Routledge,
London, 1983.
Shah, RK. “Effective Constructivist Teaching in the
Classroom.” Shanlax International Journal of
Education, vol. 7, no.4, 2019, pp. 1-13.
Smidt, S. Introducing Bruner a Guide for
Practitioners and Students in Early Years
Education, Routledge, Oxon, 2011.
Smith, D.J. and Valentine, T. “The Use and Perceived
Effectiveness of Instructional Practices in
Two-Year Technical Colleges.” Journal
on Excellence in College Teaching, vol. 23,
no. 1, 2012, pp. 133-161.
Stearns, S. “What is the Place of Lecture in Learning
Today?.” Communication Education, vol. 66,
no. 2, 2017, pp. 243-245.
Steffe, L.P. and Gale, G. Constructivism in
Education, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
Inc, New Jersey, 1995.
Taylor, PC. “Constructivism.” Encyclopedia of
Science Education, edited by Gunstone R.
Springer, Dordrecht, 2015.
“Children and their Primary Schools: A Report of
the Central Advisory Council for Education
(England).” The Plowden Report, London,
1967.
Torrance, Harry, “Assessment as Learning? How
the use of Explicit Learning Objectives,
Assessment Criteria and Feedback in Post-
Compulsory Education and Training can
come to Dominate Learning.” Assessment in
Education, vol. 14, no.3, 2007, pp. 281-294.
Torrance, H. “Formative Assessment at the
Crossroads: Conformative, Deformative
and Transformative Assessment.” Oxford
Review of Education, vol. 38, no. 3, 2012,
pp. 323-342.
Vygotsky, LS. Mind in Society: The Development
of Higher Psychological Processes, Harvard
University Press, Cambridge, 1978.
Vygotsky. LS. Thought and Language, MIT Press,
Cambridge, 1986.
Zeichner, KM. “Connecting Genuine Teacher
Development to the Struggle for Social
Injustice.” Journal of Education for Teaching,
vol. 19, no.1, 1993, pp. 5-20.
Author Details
Andrew G Holmes, Lecturer, Faculty of Arts Cultures and Education, School of Education, The University of Hull,
Hull, England, Email ID: a.g.holmes@hull.ac.uk

Constructivist learning in university undergraduate programmes

More Related Content

What's hot (16)

Similar to Constructivist learning in university undergraduate programmes (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Constructivist learning in university undergraduate programmes